Former Shell Oil president: Global warming debate is over

In an interview with Consumer Energy Report, former president of Shell Oil John Hofmeister said the debate on global warming is effectively settled. 

Tony Gutierrez/AP/File
In this August 2011 file photo, Texas State Park police officer Thomas Bigham walks across the cracked lake bed of O.C. Fisher Lake in San Angelo, Texas. In an interview with Consumer Energy Report, the former president of Shell Oil says the issue of global warming should be approached as a waste management issue.

I, along with my editor Sam Avro, recently conducted a broad-ranging interview with John Hofmeister, former President of Shell Oil and currently the head of Citizens for Affordable Energy, a non-profit group whose aim is to promote sound U.S. energy security solutions for the nation. Previous interview with Mr. Hofmeister were:

A Difficult Decade Ahead For Oil Prices and Supplies

An Energy Plan for America

Surging Demand and Flat Production Equals High Oil Prices

In the current installment, he outlines his ideas for what would constitute a sound plan of attack on climate change.

Global Warming Debate is Settled — With a Twist

I began by asking Mr. Hofmeister whether he agreed that the debate on global warming is over. He responded that he is not a scientist or climatologist, but said that once a critical mass of public officials has determined that something is a problem, then the debate is effectively settled. He also agrees that humans create significant waste, and that if this waste is cleaned up, that would address the climate change issue: 

The debate for me is over because I believe we have the technology available to us today to develop hydrocarbons and to use those hydrocarbons in ways in which we can use them fully and clean up after ourselves; with respect to physical waste, liquid waste, and gaseous waste.

So if we approach the issue of global warming/climate change as an issue of waste management – which I would prefer to do – rather than some kind of global crisis which remains undefined and unresolved. Let’s deal with what we know how to deal with. We know how to deal with waste.

This is certainly an unconventional view of the climate change issue. Most environmentalists approach this issue from the viewpoint that if ancient carbon is never burned, the carbon dioxide does not add to the atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory. Mr. Hofmeister’s position is that we should continue to develop and use our fossil carbon resources, but that we also must control the wastes which come about from using those resources. (Read More: Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures)

Some of the uses suggested by Mr. Hofmeister for carbon dioxide are in the production of vegetables and other plants, for enhanced oil production, or to simply capture, liquify it, and bury it.

He concluded his answer by saying that the issue is really not that of a warming planet, but rather the failure to manage wastes. By managing those wastes, he suggested that the climate change issue would ultimately fade away.

Because what we are really dealing with are the waste issues – not the issue of the planet warming but the issues that eliminate the wastes that may contribute to global warming.

My own view is that this problem is much more intractable than that. Certainly in the short term that is the case. There is no technology on the horizon that will allow us to capture the waste from automobiles. A widespread move toward electric cars — and then capture of the carbon dioxide at a central power plant — could address this issue. But adoption of electric cars is expected to be slow. Further, I believe it is likely that commercial viability of carbon capture and sequestration at power plants also remains at least a decade away, so for now I don’t view capture of the carbon we burn a realistic option.

I (Robert Rapier) am in attendance at the Total Energy USA conference, November 27-29 in Houston, Texas. More information is available at www.TotalEnergyUSA.com. Feel free to email me if you’re in the area and would like to meet: rapier [at] consumerenergyreport [dot] com

Link to Original Article: Hofmeister: Treat Climate Change as a Waste Management Problem
By Robert Rapier

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.